(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Jenkins’ employer had a right to reasonably expect that Jenkins would show up for work each day that she was scheduled. Jenkins did not show up for work because she was in jail for committing a crime. In my view, Minnesota law does not entitle Jenkins to unemployment benefits.
The starting point for this statutory interpretation case is the cardinal rule that we must construe the statute so as to give effect to all of its provisions. Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 187, 17 N.W.2d 324, 327 (1944) (“We have held that a statute is to be construed as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all of its parts.”). The “public purpose” of Minnesota’s unemployment insurance program is to provide temporary financial support to workers who lose their jobs “through no fault of their oivn.” Minn.Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (2004) (emphasis added). We have said that “we cannot ignore the statement of public policy” in determining whether benefits are available under the statute. Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 257 Minn. 171, 175, 100 N.W.2d 516, 519 (1960).1 While the majority acknowledges the legislative purpose, the result the majority reaches ignores it. Jenkins did not lose her job “through no fault of her own.” She lost her job because she did not show up for work.
The misconduct provision in the statute is easily read so as to give effect to the legislative purpose. Under the statute, an employee who commits misconduct is not entitled to benefits. See Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp.2003). The statute defines misconduct as “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1) that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee * * Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2003). The standard of behavior at issue in this case is showing up for work. There is no dispute that an employer’s expectation that its employees show up for work is reasonable. There likewise is no dispute that Jenkins violated this standard of behavior. She was discharged because she did not come to work for six straight days. Thus, under the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a), Jenkins’ absence from work was employee misconduct and she is therefore “ineligible for any unemployment benefits.” Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4.
Rather than follow the plain language, the majority’s inquiry ignores the statutory phrase “has the right to” included in Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a). As a result, the majority mistakenly contends that the proper inquiry under the statute is whether “the employer’s expectation for the employee [was] reasonable under the *294circumstances.” In posing and then responding to this question, the majority does not give effect to all of the parts of the statute in a manner that is either consistent with the statute as a whole or consistent with our precedent.
The majority, in essence, concludes that the employer forfeited its “right” to expect that Jenkins would come to work because the employer.did not verify her employment status with the jail even though Jenkins’ supervisor told her the employer would do this. But Minnesota law places no duty on employers to verify employment. See Minn.Stat. § 631.425, subd. 3 (2004) .(“If the person committed under this section has been regularly employed, the sheriff shall arrange for a continuation of the employment insofar as possible without interruption.”). Whatever we may think about Jenkins’ supervisor’s statements, we are not evaluating whether Jenkins should have been terminated or whether it was “fair” for her employer to terminate her. See Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn.1989) (“The issue in this action is not whether Abbott should have terminated Nurse Ress, but whether, now that he is -unemployed, he should be denied unemployment compensation”). This is especially so because the legislature has specifically provided that “[tjhere shall be no equitable or common law * * * allowance of unemployment benefits.” Minn.Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2004).
Jenkins’ employer had the right to reasonably expect that Jenkins would show up for work. When Jenkins did not show up for six straight days, her absence was employee misconduct and she is not entitled to unemployment benefits.
I would affirm.
. The majority relies on the discussion of "good cause” in Grushus and the discussion of the employee’s "good faith efforts” in Prickett. In my view, such discussion has no relevance under the current version of the statute. As we have noted, prior to 1997, "employment misconduct was undefined by statute.” Houston v. Int'l Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d 144, 149 (Minn.2002). In contrast to Grushus and Prickett, the question before us in this case does not require that we utilize common law definitions of "misconduct.” The legislature has provided the definition in the statute and our only task is to apply that definition.